Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31747110›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020

Perceptions of people with respiratory problems on physician performance evaluation-A qualitative study.

Carolin Sehlbach, Marjan J B Govaerts, Sharon Mitchell, Truus G J Teunissen, Frank W J M Smeenk, Erik W Driessen, Gernot G U Rohde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Perceptions of people with respiratory problems on physician performance evaluation-A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Carolin SehlbachDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9732-1377
Marjan J B GovaertsDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sharon MitchellWorld Heart Federation, Geneva, Switzerland.
Truus G J TeunissenPatient Contributor, and Researcher at the Department of Medical Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health research institute (APH), Amsterdam UMC Free University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Frank W J M SmeenkSchool of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4963-2714
Erik W DriessenDepartment of Educational Development and Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8115-261X
Gernot G U RohdeDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University Hospital, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5193-7755

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increasing calls for patient and public involvement in health-care quality improvement, the question of how patient evaluations can contribute to physician learning and performance assessment has received scant attention.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to explore, amid calls for patient involvement in quality assurance, patients' perspectives on their role in the evaluation of physician performance and to support physicians' learning and decision making on professional competence.

designA qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews. SETTING AND

participantsThe study took place in a secondary care setting in the Netherlands. The authors selected 25 patients from two Dutch hospitals and through the Dutch Lung Foundation, using purposive sampling.

methodsData were analysed according to the principles of template analysis, based on an a priori coding framework developed from the literature about patient empowerment, feedback and performance assessment.

resultsThe analysis unearthed three predominant patient perspectives: the proactive perspective, the restrained perspective and the outsider perspective. These perspectives differed in terms of perceived power dynamics within the doctor-patient relationship, patients' perceived ability, and willingness to provide feedback and evaluate their physician's performance. Patients' perspectives thus affected the role patients envisaged for themselves in evaluating physician performance. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionAlthough not all patients are equally suitable or willing to be involved, patients can play a role in evaluating physician performance and continuing training through formative approaches. To involve patients successfully, it is imperative to distinguish between different patient perspectives and empower patients by ensuring a safe environment for feedback.

Indexed as

FeedbackPatient ParticipationPerceptionWork PerformanceHospitalsHumansInpatientsInterviews as TopicNetherlandsPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansQualitative ResearchRespiratory Tract Infectionsempowermentfeedbacklifelong learningpatient and public involvementpatient perspectiveperformance evaluationpower dynamicsrecertificationrevalidationvoice

Identifiers

PMID31747110
PMCPMC6978864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.